Zathalus
Member
According to the pinned comment, mistakes in the graph. The 4060 is 18fps for example.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Excellent performance. Looking forward to firing up this beast just to perv at it.
Paasei
Member
Performance looks rather good. That's quite the achievement nowadays.
Noticed that, too. And the 5080 outperformes the 4080 on a lower preset. Kinda weird, indeed.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Crimson Desert Benchmark: 40 GPUs Tested
Preset Scaling Performance
Upscaling Performance
Cinematic 1440p
High Preset 1440p
Thank you for custom engines!
Hyet
Member
Bojji
Gold Member
And it seems like Digital Foundry screwed up with their benchmarks for RR.
They are using native FSR/DLSS here? Maybe cost is different when combining with SR.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Optimization guide.
HU also concludes that it's extremely taxing.And it seems like Digital Foundry screwed up with their benchmarks for RR.
Last edited:
alabtrosMyster
Member
winjer
Gold Member
Optimization guide.
HU also concludes that it's extremely taxing.
One thing to consider is that the option for RR, increases graphics quality to an extreme preset. So the loss is not just due to RR overhead. Most of it is probably just the increased detail.
The other thing to consider, is that, just like with Computerbase, RR on AMD and NVidia have a similar performance impact. Proving that DF's numbers were incorrect.
Of course quality is another problem for AMD.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
I think it's because perhaps they had a different build. HU had the review build and lighting quality there maxed out at Cinematic. Alex made no mention of a Max setting like HUB does, this was seemingly added later. He probably had an earlier test build.
winjer
Gold Member
It's not a new setting. The game just forces higher level quality for some graphicsl features.
The version that DF is probably identical to what other review channels had, both for reviews and technical analysis.
Alex is not a competent person at analyzing games and this is not the first time he fucks up.
Yeah there's no way the 4090 is barely faster than the 4080S and the gap between the 4090 and 5090 is too big also imho. Smells like RE9 all over again
roosnam1980
Gold Member
performance hit for both ray regeneration/ray reconstruction is the same
contrary to what alex said on DF
contrary to what alex said on DF
Last edited:
Jet Set Willy
Member
Yeah this. Best investment ever. And I could sell it now for more than i paid for it at launch over 3 years ago, it's crazy.
Still jealous of those 5090 benchmarks though lol
Last edited:
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Same. Getting a 4090 at MSRP at launch I felt like I overpaid. But it was well worth it looking back. I might even skip rtx60 series.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Much more in-depth compared to every other channel, but I find it interesting how Steve brought up numerous bugs, slow load times, and CTDs, when Hardware Unboxed mentioned no such things. He also had the public build, whereas Steve and Tim seemingly had a pre-release/review build.
Of not, is how wildly the 1% lows swung on his system with the 5060 Ti, but from what HU said, it was fairly stable. I also haven't seen many people complain about the performance or stability either.
Edit: Also forgot to mention I think HU's methodology was lacking. All Steve from HU did was run a 40 seconds pass through a town. GN ran multiple passes under multiple different scenarios.
Last edited:
Bojji
Gold Member
I like their animation fluidity test vs. frametime/framerate. There are many more metrics to how fluid the game is than just FPS...
That said, for me game is perfectly stable. Zero crashes or weird visual bugs, only bug I encountered that could be classified as "annoying" was 30fps lock when I disabled FG in main menu (game has no fps lock options). But that went away after restarting it.
Last edited:
winjer
Gold Member
Yes, it was very in-depth, especially the time animations.
But he didn't run all those 20 runs he showed, for every GPU. He did that for one or two, picked the scenario that was most consistent and that was closes to the average and then ran all other GPUs only on that city path.
Then there were somethings that were strange. The pink squares he showed, I don't think that anyone else had this problem. And if it had happened with HU, Tim and Steve would have referenced it, as they usually do.
But this type of problem usually shows up either with a bad shader compilation, or with faulty ram/vram.
The game crashes to desktop, usually indicate a software problem. Though it can also be hardware related. So that can be the game having issues.
But when a system hard crashes to the UEFI boot, that is a hardware problem. Usually a bad PSU or bad memory. Though it can also be a bad CPU or motherboard.
It's not a game problem.
After seeing all he went through, I strongly believe he had a faulty system. And that was what was causing most of his problems.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Also thought he had a faulty system, but he had 3 test benches and all had problems.
Whatever the case, I really hope they fo something about RR deleting the rain.
winjer
Gold Member
I think he only had problems in one.
In part of the video, he was talking about the pink squares and said it was the second GPU to have it. So it wasn't on all of them.
It could be that he was switching GPUs, and something got corrupted.
Bojji
Gold Member
It is a problem for many other games.
Pear Abyss hard locked VRAM usage in this game, on cinematic settings + 4K output it still is mostly compatible with 8GB GPUs... Why the fuck limit the game like that?
phant0m
Member
Game still looks better than 95% of games on the market today so
Bojji
Gold Member
Game still looks better than 95% of games on the market today so
True. But they could use that memory to reduce pop in.
